Excluding nature from justice reflects one cultural cosmology over others

Evidence

But it is not just states that violate impartiality; partiality is evident even in supposedly impartial liberal theories of justice. As noted above, classic liberal justice theorists such as Rawls or Barry would not include nature as a subject of, or partner in, justice. But note the lack of impartiality here: some cultures and cosmologies assume sentience, a soul, and consciousness to nature—both individual critters and the larger landscapes. Any theory of justice that excludes parts of the world from consideration that some cultures would include begins under a very partial cultural bias; and assuming one cultural bias over the other is not how one should ground an impartial theory of justice. — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice, 359

Categorization

  • XREF: Connects directly to settler-colonial and indigenous cosmology threads in the Eco-Justice course — recognition of nature’s agency as cultural pluralism, not special pleading. — connects to: Liberalism is not actually impartial in theory or practice — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 357; Justice to nature can rest on shared qualities without erasing difference — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 449; Modernity’s exclusion of nature from justice created its sustainability crisis — David Schlosberg, Defining Environmental Justice:…, 473 (+7 more)
  • ADDENDUM: Parallel to the recognition claims in earlier chapters (ch58, ch83 on indigenous frames of environmental harm as cultural survival) — extends the cultural-recognition logic to nature itself.

Broader Connections